Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collegium ramazzini


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Collegium ramazzini

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable academy. Tinton5 (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable, and unreferenced.
 * Keep: With 76 Google News hits and four hundred and thirty-five Google Scholar hits, I can only conclude that the nom and the other Delete proponent completely blew off WP:BEFORE.  The proper response for a lack of adequate sourcing is to see if the article can be sourced, not a knee-jerk AfD.  Ravenswing  00:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There are actually 2 results for Google News. However, the Google Scholar links are not bad to work with. Thank you for providing those. Tinton5 (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply: I'm unsure what methodology you're using to view News hits, but there are articles from the Charlestown News & Courier, the New York Times, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, the Pittsburgh Press, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Meriden Record-Journal, news-medical.net, and so on and so forth; a few more than two.  Ravenswing  08:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well the link you provided, only 2 come up for some reason. Thanks though for trying. Tinton5 (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly because I use Google using their secure server, and likely you don't. Nothing, however, stops you from going to Google News' advanced search option, typing in "Collegium Ramazzini" and observing the results ... the sort of minimal effort WP:BEFORE enjoins us to undertake in any event before filing an AfD.  Ravenswing  01:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Took your advice, Raven, however, very few of the results that I searched give information as to why this academy is important. Many just give brief mentions about said establishment. Tinton5 (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No doubt. Of course, only two references which discuss the subject in detail are sufficient to meet the GNG.  Ravenswing  17:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am the author, and I will find some additional external references tonight. Gofigure41 03:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gofigure41 (talk • contribs)

Okay, I have added beaucoup additional external links to peer-reviewed scientific publications and editorials. I have also added numerous recent announcements for the election of international scientists to the board including doctors from Columbia University, Boston University, India and Italy. There are many more that I will keep adding. Does this now qualify to get the AfD removed? I will work next to get links to the popular press stories as well, but the internal scientific links alone seem to me to make this work more than sufficiently notable to avoid deletion. Thanks, Gofigure41 04:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gofigure41 (talk • contribs)

Last thing for today, added more external and internal links, including one about the 1995 Washington DC Symposia as described in the peer-reviewed scientific publication, Environmental health Sciences. Lots more to add, but hopefully this gets this page off the AdF.Gofigure41 05:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gofigure41 (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep - New content contributor, thus a few imperfections that grate, like green links in the body of the piece — but still, good work. Footnote 1, an NIH publication, pretty much gets this over the notability bar for me. Multiple references to the organization cited above. RESCUE SQUAD should be summoned to help bring this piece up to snuff... Carrite (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I will work on fixing the links and look forward to more suggestions from others. Gofigure41 17:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gofigure41 (talk • contribs)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.